• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gage's next debate

Hey Chris7, Guess what?

Most of the fire is out in this building too when it collapses!!

So, like I have said to you before. Time to go BACK to the drawing board!!

LOL!!!

ETA: Guess what else? The undamaged protion was NOT able to prevent the complete collapse!!

I LOVE this video!! LOL!! AWESOME!!

I'll have to do some research on this collapse. I wonder if the local/federal government did an investigation that I can access. What country is this from?
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Oh, and BTW C7 I never intended to agree with you on Floor 12. I only offered a possible alternative explanation (thermal contraction), IF the NIST expansion theory didn't pan out. No quote mining please.
Click to expand...
If?
The NIST hypothesis did not "pan out". Certainly you understand that after the fire burned out it could not heat the floor beams and cause them to expand.

As I have pointed out, the NIST hypothesis is that the collapse began WHEN THE BEAMS WERE HEATED.
 
Christopher7 said:
This is not a detail. The fire had burned out and therefore could not heat [thermally expand] the floor beams and trigger the collapse. This is a fatal flaw.
Click to expand...
What happens when they cool and try to return to their original size (and configuration)

I'm a carpenter and I thought about this.

;)
 
DGM said:
You do not understand their hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself. Here is the NIST hypothesis:

NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64]
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

* * * * *
In the final report the two time references are explained on pg 572 [1-9 Vol.2 pdf pg 234] The "collapse time" is 0.0 when the kink in the roof line of the east penthouse was observed. Figure 12-42 on pg 573 says floors 13 and 14 collapsed in the NE region 6.5 seconds before the kink in the east penthouse was observed.
 
Christopher7 said:
Speak for yourself. Here is the NIST hypothesis:

NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64]
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

I see your bold and add my own.

;)
 
DGM said:
I see your bold and add my own.

;)
Click to expand...
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 572 [pdf pg 234]
Even though each floor had been weakened over hours of exposure to separate and independent fires, it was not until there was substantial damage to the long span floors in the northeast region of Floor 13 that the initial failure event, i.e., the buckling of column 79, was triggered.
 
Christopher7 said:
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 572 [pdf pg 234]
Even though each floor had been weakened over hours of exposure to separate and independent fires, it was not until there was substantial damage to the long span floors in the northeast region of Floor 13 that the initial failure event, i.e., the buckling of column 79, was triggered.
Click to expand...

Yes. And now all you have to do is bend and twist the other statements until you come to this:

Christopher7 said:
This is not a detail. The fire had burned out and therefore could not heat [thermally expand] the floor beams and trigger the collapse. This is a fatal flaw.
Click to expand...
(You do know all the text has to be taken together? Engineers are funny like that)
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Awesome! Near free fall collapse right into its footprint! Yes i will use this.
Click to expand...

The Dutch building?
Uh, quite far from freefall (not unexpected - it was much smaller), and you don't know how the debris was or wasn't distributed, or do you?
 
Christopher7 said:
If?
The NIST hypothesis did not "pan out". Certainly you understand that after the fire burned out it could not heat the floor beams and cause them to expand.

As I have pointed out, the NIST hypothesis is that the collapse began WHEN THE BEAMS WERE HEATED.
Click to expand...

Hey there Chris, Did you see the videos that DaveThomasNMSR posted?

The building collapsed AFTER the majority of fire was out. Did you see that?

Go back to your drawing board.
 
Oystein said:
The Dutch building?
Uh, quite far from freefall (not unexpected - it was much smaller), and you don't know how the debris was or wasn't distributed, or do you?
Click to expand...

I have contacted the authors of the paper, and asked them if they have any aftermath pictures they can send me.

If I get them, I will post them here.
 
triforcharity said:
Hey there Chris, Did you see the videos that DaveThomasNMSR posted?

The building collapsed AFTER the majority of fire was out. Did you see that?
Click to expand...
That does not change the FACT that the NIST hypothesis is fraudulent. They said thermal expansion, not thermal contraction, triggered the collapse. This did not happen because the fire had burned out.

Y'all will keep denying the obvious and I will keep reminding you and the lurkers what the NIST hypothesis is and why it is impossible.
 
This did not happen because the fire had burned out.
Click to expand...
Thermal properties of materials apply whether the fire is burning or not. Thermal expansion and contraction are influenced by the changes in temperature, and both expansion and contraction have the same effect when the scale of their occurrence is not adequately accounted for.
Do us all a favor and stop inventing your own rules for physics...:rolleyes:
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Thermal properties of materials apply whether the fire is burning or not. Thermal expansion and contraction are influenced by the changes in temperature, and both expansion and contraction have the same effect when the scale of their occurrence is not adequately accounted for.
Click to expand...
You have a good grip on that self evident fact so why are you having a problem understanding what the NIST hypothesis is?

NIST says that thermal expansion, not thermal contraction, triggered the collapse.
 
Christopher7 said:
That does not change the FACT that the NIST hypothesis is fraudulent. They said thermal expansion, not thermal contraction, triggered the collapse. This did not happen because the fire had burned out.

Y'all will keep denying the obvious and I will keep reminding you and the lurkers what the NIST hypothesis is and why it is impossible.
Click to expand...

Even if this were the case, it wouldn't prove CD. This is just like young earth creationists who believe poking holes in evolutionary theory proves divine creation. I leave the possibility of NIST's hypothesis being falsified to the relevant experts. (aka structual and forensic engineers) Since there are many engineers and scientists, some of which post here regularly, who have read the report and found it's conclusions reasonable, couldn't you have just made a mistake in your "analysis"? There are lots of factors to consider in the collapse some of which would take some very detailed simulations to work out, and years of experience in the relevant fields.

I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound. I asked you this before, but if you believe the NIST scientists were in on it is some way, why would they leave such obvious flaws in the report? Especially ones large enough for a layperson to spot. Surely you believe other evidence was tampered with by the conspirators, so why not do it again in the NIST report?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom